Print
Former Head of National Council of Churches Speaks at Andrews Seminary Symposium—Part I
On Thursday, February 2, Dr. Michael Kinnamon spoke at the annual Seminary Scholarship Symposium at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University. Dr. Kinnamon, who received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago Divinity School, is an ordained minister, educator and ecumenical leader of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The Christian Church comes out of a tradition related to the Christian Connection, the movement from which James White and Joseph Bates came when they founded Seventh-day Adventism.
The decision to have Dr. Kinnamon speak was contested by a website launched by the same anonymous person who opposed the decision to have T.D. Jakes speak at the 2011 Pastoral Evangelism and Leadership Conference at Oakwood University. The site now urges Adventists to oppose Kinnamon's invitation to the seminary because he is not a church member and he is a proponent of ecumenism.
In response to this opposition, seminary dean Denis Fortin made a statement at the January 31 seminary chapel service which emphasized that the decision was made in consultation with university administrators and that it is a scholarly symposium in which varying perspectives are presented and then discussed critically.
Before the evening lecture, Dr. Kinnamon spoke at an earlier assembly about the importance of love for fellow followers of Christ and the need to be convinced of the truth of God from the Bible with integrity and to protect the integrity of those with whom we disagree. The text for the talk was Romans 14-15, Paul’s vision of reconciled community which challenges airs of superiority and disrespect for opposing factions. Kinnamon stated that “the ecumenical movement’s aim is to make visible the unity which is our gift in Jesus Christ. Not a unity which we create, but a unity which is a gift to us in Jesus Christ.” In regard to Adventist fears of ecumenism, he said that he does not want us to lose our distinctives, but that Adventism has things to offer that other Christian churches have let atrophy and need to relearn. He made it clear that he does not want us to give up our convictions. Speaking of the Sabbath, he said,
Heaven’s no, we don’t want you to give up the Sabbath. We need to learn from you about the Sabbath.
At the end of this morning assembly, Denis Fortin gave Dr. Kinnamon an Andrews Study Bible which will provide him with the Adventist perspective.
To hopefully allay some Adventist concerns about the seminary a 2003 article by Dean Fortin considers ecumenicalism and the role of the papacy. He brings attention to the significance of the fact that in Orthodox, Anglican or Protestant dialogues there is not talk of abolishing the papacy as a condition for unity. He concludes: “the teachings of Scripture should serve as the only infallible and reliable guide to doctrinal and theological developments in ecclesiology.”
While another article will be posted after the evening discussion, I would like to close with the goal of interfaith dialogue. In this setting there is not a blurring of the lines of what it means to be a member of a particular faith tradition, but to find ways to respect each other and shared community service. At a discussion between Adventists and Presbyterians in 2010, the participants hoped “to reach a clearer understanding of each other, removing false stereotypes and misconceptions” and “explore areas of possible cooperation, but without any intention for eventual institutional unity.”
Stay tuned for another article following tonight’s lecture: “The Ecumenical Movement and Why You Should Be Involved.”
—A recent theology graduate of Walla Walla University, Landon Schnabel is studying at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan.
User login
Recent
- Joe Erwin Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Anonymouswon Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Carrol Grady Should Seventh-day Adventists be Republicans?
- Sirje Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Fred Eastman The Role of Institutions in Evangelism – A Call to the Adventist Business Community
Newsletter
Organizations
Fri, 08/31/2012 - Sun, 09/02/2012
Job Dybdahl, Sigve Tonstad, Harri Kuhalampi
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
It is fitting that our church, in the appropriate settings, entertain speakers from other faiths, and it is especially important that in these times in whch we are living our church reach out to leaders and members of other denominations. This has happened frequently throughout our history and is in keeping with the counsel we have from our former leaders. To cut ourselves off will create an air of subtle arrogance which will not lend to the image we have wished to create down through our years of existence--that of a loving, tolerant, respectful and inquiring people; and by doing so, we in no way take steps toward beliefs that could undermine our distinctiveness. It has never been the case. Those dissidents who have gathered a following in the past were not prompted by invited non-Adventist speakers, thus we have nothing to fear in following such a program. I heartily approve and recommend we don't discontinue the paractise.
This certainly is not something new. The SDA Seminary has always invited people from different faiths/perspectives to speak. I was at the seminary when Gerhard Hasel was dean, and of course, Dr. Hasel was regarded as quite conservative. But even he brought in scholars from very different perspectives as speakers. That doesn't mean that the seminary endorses everything these people believe/stand for, but learning about others is an important part of what it means to be an educated person. The seminary is not a local church; it has been established to train graduate students on tthe masters and doctoral levels. Without such exposure, the education of graduate students would be quite impossible!
To only say that our S.D.A people can speak to us shows arrogance. If we are so afraid that some one might just put a different view on things than we have and lead people out of the church shows that as a people we don't have a very firm grip on what our church is all about. In stead should make us go back to our beliefs and make sure we have it right.
By the way since when has doctrine saved any of us?
I can remember wanting to invite a Presbyterian minister to speak at my church when I was an elder and by the fuss you must have thought I wanted to invited the Devil himself to speak,
Outside of academic communities, I have found the church to mostly be rather unstimulating when it comes to exploring ideas and issues of our world. Adventism had, generally, a narrow agenda towards which things were steered.
My mind and life is constantly enriched by a wide variety of fascinating people, ideas and discussions that I had had through attending and engaging far beyond the walls of our churches. To have had many of them take place in our churches or institutions would have caused an unholy ruckus! We generally have little idea of what we are missing by such exclusivity, judgment and narrowness.
I am sure Eve appreciated being enriched and included in satan's dialogue before she sat down to dinner with him.
pardon???...we are talking about other parts of the body of Christ. This thought does not wash with Jesus
We can love others but dont need their false theology brought into our churches and institutions. Love the sinners not the sin. Their theology is not biblical and we do not need to have anything to do with the ecunemical community. Eve's dialogue with the devil was what led to her downfal and ours.
'Eve's dialogue with the devil was what led to her downfall and ours.'
In context I can only take this to mean you think we dialogue with the devil when we listen to testimonies from other faiths. ie these people are of the devil. How else can I read that? I hate that sort of arrogant language.
'Their theology is not biblical and we do not need to have anything to do with the ecunemical community.'
Their theology is to you wrong so lets condemn them to the pyres.... separate ourselves from the rest of the body... bring up the drawbridge... circle the wagons. There is a narrow band of theology that is required for salvation, and i think they are in that band.
This is warped to the extreme. How do you interpret JN 10:16?
Has nothing to do with arrogance. I suppose that God's constant message for the Israelites to stay away from paganism and idolatry would be construed as arrogance?
Absolutely God has other sheep and I dont believe Adventist people to be perfect but the doctrine is sound and we do not need to corrupt with pagan ideology.
17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
These are not my words but God's. Yes, I believe in the Three Angels message which is a call for people to come out of babylon, not invite her in.
This is all because Ted Wilson has been advocating Adventist-only speakers in any setting, which is admittedly a limited philosophy when it comes to inviting speakers. Take that kind of advice with a grain of salt. For goodness' sake, the man has the potential to hold erroneous opinions as we do. He is not Ellen White incarnate. I have never seen our denomination follow orders so mindlessly.
I attended both sessions today. Dr. Kinnamon (pretty cool last name btw) was the most honest and straight-talking theologian I have ever heard. He acknowledged many of the important concerns we have of ecumenicism and also told us how the SDA stance on avoiding ecumenicism has shaped other Christians' views of us. He acknowledged that we are sometimes characterized as a cult by other denominations but that we should not allow this misconception by a few to deter us from seeking interaction with those outside of our faith. He affirmed our validity as a church community but encouraged us to share our insights with others. Not only would this clarify many misconceptions of who we are, it would allow us to share the gifts of knowledge we have received throughout our history with other denominations without losing our own distinctiveness. To the contrary, he characterized our doctrinal distinctiveness as an asset rather than a liability. For instance, he affirmed our great understanding of the Sabbath and implored us to consider sharing our beliefs and practices on the subject with others and to not let debates over the first day of the week and the seventh day of the week prevent us from sharing our insights on how to worship God and honor the Sabbath get in the way.
Not exactly a threatening speaker. We don't have to agree with him or be involved in ecumenicism, but at least we had the opportunity to see that he's not the demonic force our more fundamentalist thinkers make him out to be.
One of these days the laity, in an effort to collectively shift our philosophical understanding of theological dialogue and scholarship, will need to take massive strides to try and understand what this kind of practice is about and what our (theologians, students) purposes are in interacting with "the other." This is only fair if we want to honor the intellectual tradition that has essentially sustained Adventism. If we are a little open-minded, perhaps we will see that our theologians aren't so bad after all.
Bonus tip: if you haven't attended the Seminary or thoroughly engaged in the writings of our theologians, nor attended symposiums or opportunities to see them speak, then you have no basis whatsoever for judging them or our Seminary. Andrews University is a fantastic school and it has produced the vast majority of influential people in the church, progressive and traditional. These scholars love the Adventist church and have given their lives for its continued sustainability in an age of theological confusion.
"Thus saith the Lord" is basis enough.
LaMoria,
How can you so corrupt a text:
'17Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.....
....I suppose that God's constant message for the Israelites to stay away from paganism and idolatry would be construed as arrogance?'
We are not talking about paganism, why do you keep referring to it. In your own words... 'Absolutely God has other sheep'... it's these other sheep I am referring to. Who said anything about paganism. These are members of the body, why do you want to cast them off?
So now other Christian faiths are unclean, of the devil and a form of paganism. I think its wonderful that most people saved won't be Adventists. God is not so narrow minded as we.
Again, I am not "casting off" the people. I am "casting off" the message. That simple.
The article says, “The decision to have Dr. Kinnamon speak was contested by a website [keepnotsilent.com] launched by the same anonymous person who opposed the decision to have T.D. Jakes speak at the 2011 Pastoral Evangelism and Leadership Conference at Oakwood University.”
Actually, while the person behind this critical website has not posted his name, a little digging shows it is probably Jared Thurmon. I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but after researching I found a lot of interesting information on this impressive, media-savvy, entrepreneurial Adventist young man. I will share what I’ve learned about Jared and why I think he launched the site. I’ll also share his contact information so if anyone wants to find out more from him directly, he/she can do so.
A domain registration search (http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/keepnotsilent.com) on the domain KeepNotSilent.com shows the registrant to be: Jared Thurmon, 3600 Dallas Highway, Suite 230-395, Marietta, Georgia 30064. Email is: thurmon@gmail.com and Phone # is: (770) 366-9070.
The domain name was created on May 23, 2011. On the Oakwood page of the keepnotsilent.com website there is a video entitled, “TD Jakes invited to Evangelism Council”. The YouTube link shows that it was uploaded by PresentTruthHD on May 29, 2011, just 6 days after keepnotsilent.com was created. PresentTruthHD has 26 other videos on YouTube (as of 2/2/2012), including a golf clip where the videographer is called “Jared” (at 1:09) by the golfer (“Dr. Busch”). PresentTruthHD apparently is an online name taken by Jared Thurmon. Jared Thurmon’s Twitter feed is: http://twitter.com/thurmon. Interesting, he does not claim (or deny) personal responsibility for the videos but provided links in his Twitter feed at the time of posting the Andrews and Oakwood videos and invited folks to view them.
Other videos posted by PresentTruthHD include various religious presentations by Jared Thurmon (he was not identified in the most sectarian religious videos I watched but the voice is the same as that of the videographer in the golfing clip). One worrisome title is, “If Ellen White is not a prophet, then God does not exist.” Several are last day events type presentations, such as “Religious Persecution—Is it knocking at the door?” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xuM3NfYXU0&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL). These videos are tagged with “Jared Thurmon” while the Oakwood and Andrews videos were not tagged, though still uploaded by PresentTruthHD, possibly indicating a preference for anonymity on the “attack” videos.
Some of the 26 videos introduce The Daniel Challenge, a 10-week health challenge seminar program. The videos are of professional quality. The website, thedanielchallenge.com, is registered to Jared Thurmon. Another of the 26 videos is the Beehive Promo featuring Ted Wilson promoting EGW’s message of a beehive of activity to the cities, with a link to beehivevision.com, which rolls over to thebeehives.org. Both of these are registered to Jared Thurmon. The site has limited content but lists projects including health seminars and last day events seminars as well as the Hive List, a sort of Craig’s List for ministries (thus far not much used).
One Beehive project is to build 2 agriculture training schools in Haiti. Viewers are asked to donate to the Beehive thrift store which will give the proceeds to the Haiti project. Jared is given as a phone contact to schedule a pickup, at the same number given as in the above domain registrations. Other projects are described in another Beehive video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLw0ftBMlnY&list=UUjKzbe2Py441C0sLrg7mHIA..., including thrift stores in Atlanta and Phoenix, an agriculture school in India, a vegetarian cooking show, and a 12 lecture evangelistic series. The Beehive was featured in the Adventist Review: http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2011-1511&page=18. According to the article, “Developed by Rico Hill, a Seventh-day Adventist who once was a former executive director of product and development for Nickelodeon Animation and later a vice president for programming at the Cartoon Network, along with Jared Thurmon, an entrepreneur with a heart for mission, the Daniel Challenge is geared for the secular mind and includes principles of physical, mental, and spiritual health.” The series has been presented at several secular universities. Jared has authored a study guide on Daniel and Revelation to use in The Daniel Challenge health series.
Jared Thurmon is also the registrant for the Presenttruth.com website (the actual registrant is “TBA” but Jared’s email is given). Presenttruth.com offers a conservative blog and recorded sermons (including Jared, David Assherick, Ed Reid and others) and videos with special emphasis (and speculation) on last day events (for example, on finding “Occupy Wall Street” in Bible prophecy).
From links on the DanielChallenge site, it appears that Jared is on the staff of the Atlanta Advent Hope SDA Church; the elder is Scott Thurmon, presumably related. According to the Georgia-Cumberland Conference website, Advent Hope is a company. The church has an attractive website: http://adventhopeatlanta.org/?page_id=38. A sermon by Jared is posted there. He is articulate and passionate about his end-time message.
Jared’s day job appears to be as a business/media consultant and spa manager. He is the registrant for Zealconsulting.info. His portfolio appears to be limited thus far to his personal and family websites, but can be found on his blog: http://jaredthurmon.blogspot.com/. One of the clients is his wife Annette, an SAU nursing graduate and now a custom wedding dress designer: http://www.chavianocouture.com/the-dream/meet-the-designer-2. Another is Medalyn Salon and Med Spa, which manta.com says is owned by Scott Thurman and managed by Jared (and is closed Saturdays). Yet another domain name, JaredThurmon.com, is registered to Jared at 1461 Kennesaw Due West Rd, Kennesaw, GA, 30152, a residential area.
I am impressed by Jared! He has a sense of humor (his Rome trip videos with wife Annette were funny; some may see humor in his video of golfing buddy Charlly Pak urinating on an Arizona golf course, while others might wonder what EGW would say). He has media savvy, compassion for people, a willingness to work for others, and is involved in concrete actions to better people’s lives through community service. What he is doing is what many Progressives also want to do (and some are doing). What divides, however, is the behind-the-scenes narrative that runs through the whole program, and that makes many of us shudder. I cringed when I saw some of the content on YouTube, realizing that people would associate that narrow sectarian viewpoint with Adventism. In this regard he is merely quoting and echoing Ted Wilson and others, and his last day emphasis could have come directly out of classes taught at Southern, so it is easy to see where he picked this up and hard in a way to fault him for it. One can hope he outgrows it.
Why did Jared launch the website against non-SDA speakers at Oakwood and Andrews? Referring back to the video on imminent religious persecution provides a big hint. Jared suggests that anti-gay marriage (which he says is a religious institution) legislation and anti-NYC Ground Zero mosque activity are evidence of coming religious persecution. He argues that when Protestant churches come together on common ground to enforce religious institutions through the power of the state then the image to the beast will have been formed. I suggest that this belief lies at the root of Jared’s opposition to non-SDA speakers in Adventist institutions and why he so strongly opposes anything that smacks of ecumenism. He criticized Glen Beck and the Religious Right on this basis. Interestingly, he and Progressive SDAs share common ground here!
In conclusion, Jared is an example of just the kind of media savvy, high energy, community-service oriented young adult many progressive Adventists would be proud to count as their own. If, that is, he weren’t so heavily indoctrinated with sectarian Adventist beliefs, many rooted in attitudes and culture of 150 years ago.
With regard to physical recreation, EGW wrote, “Satan is delighted when he sees human beings using their physical and mental powers in that which does not educate, which is not useful, which does not help them to be a blessing to those who need their help. While they are becoming experts in games that are not of the least value to themselves or others, Satan is playing the game of life for their souls, taking from them the precious talents God has given them, and placing in their stead his own evil attributes, which not only destroy them, but through their influence destroy those who have any connection with them.” {RH March 13, 1900, par. 4}
I’m hopeful that as Jared matures, he will develop more flexibility and understanding of those in the Adventist church with different beliefs. After all, he DOES show flexibility in his personal application of EGW writings despite his rigid application of them to others. A few examples: (1) he plays golf, despite the above EGW quote on useless games; (2) his wife designs what EGW would consider immodest gowns; (3) Medalyn Spa offers bikini waxes and expensive cosmetic treatments, hardly what EGW would endorse spending money on; (4) he attended mass and knowingly broke the rules on videotaping in the Vatican. If he can support these activities—even attending the pope’s Sunday mass—perhaps he can be a little more understanding next time Adventist scholars want to dialogue with other Christians.
And in case he reads this: Jared, I truly am impressed with your new media talents! I wish you success in your humanitarian ventures and in your personal life. I hope you’ll listen to the progressive Adventist voices, not just the conservatives; there is much common ground, and you should be talking with each other.
HandAcrossTheGolf,
I applaud your taking the time to know Jared.
"The decision to have Dr. Kinnamon speak was contested by a website launched by the same anonymous person..."
Since when is "anonymous" a synonymous of "coward?"
Those people who don't have the dignity to identify themselves, people that do this type of things shouldn't even be mentioned in any decent blog.
By the way, I applaud HandAcrossTheGolf's dedication in digging the net and identifying a possible culprit. I think we all should email this guy and ask him if he is behind (literally "hidden") this infamous and coward attitude. I just did this, let see if he has the courage and decency of replying... (my expectation for this to happen is, of course, very very minimal...)
@LaMoria Patterson:"Again, I am not "casting off" the people. I am 'casting off' the message. That simple."
LaMoria, a simple YES/NO question for you: Where you present at this lecture, or did you at least listen to his message in its entirety?
Simple question. Please, no lecture as an answer, just a simple YES [ ] or NO [ ]
Dear Michael S.
It's nice to have an evaluation of what went on at the seminary by someone who was actually there. And your post highlights something important. If Adventists don't interact with other people, we really have nothing to say to the world or to the larger Christian community. The best form of evangelism is friendship evangelism, but if all our friends are Adventist, we can't do friendship evangelism. We simply must interact with others and let them see who we really are. And yes, we can learn from other Christians. I firmly believe that God has entrusted us with a spirit-directed message for the endtimes, but that doesn't mean that we have a complete corner on truth. God, His word, and His truth are far bigger than just Adventists!
I'm also glad that Dr.Kinnamon appreciates our message, but if we were to shun people like him and refuse to interact
, they would have no oportunity to learn from us.
Who will be the next pinata to be compensated with an Andrews Study Bible at the next ASSS meeting?
Thank you! It is encouraging to know that others can see this deception.
At this crisis all are called upon to take their position. We must stand APART from those who are determined to make shipwreck of the faith. We must not sell our Lord at any price. We are to REFUSE TO LISTEN to the sophistries that have been brought in to make of no effect the truth for this time. Not a stone is to be moved in the foundation of this truth—not a pillar moved.... The time has come when even in the church and in our institutions, some will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. But God will keep that which is committed to Him.... Through those who depart from the faith the power of the enemy will be exercised, to lead others astray. Manuscript Releases Volume Seven [Nos. 419-525], Page 188
LaMoria: if you are going to comment with such a strident EGW quote, and if you want anyone to take you at all seriously, then you have a responsibility to demonstrate why you think such extreme prose applies in the situation under discussion.
Words like "crisis", "determined to make shipwreck of the faith", "sell our Lord", etc. are extreme. You have to make a case that the context in which EGW wrote those remarks (and I don't know what that originally was) has any relevance in this situation. It hardly seems to me that such extreme language - from anyone - is applicable here. And it is also uninteresting if you respond that I can't see how bad it is because I'm just too far gone.
The burden of proof is on you. And the more extreme the assessment, the more proof needs to be supplied to support the accusation. You've done none of this. Without doing so I'm afraid your isolated quote does not aid your case, it undermines it.
Friends
It really is sad to think that we cannot have "dialogue and discourse" with other Christians without the exaggerated "fear" of contamination of our doctrines and being seduced by the devil into losing our faith!! Are we so feeble minded that mere discussion of Christian experiences that may be somewhat different from ours poses such a threat??
Where does the "come now let us reason together" fit into this scenario?? Or the "study to show thyself approved" fit ??
I think it is a great opportunity to share our ideas and gain some understanding of others!! How do we expect to share if we never "engage with others"?!?
Kudos to the Seminary for this interchange of ideas!! Keep it up!!
Fred
PS Charles P :>) !
Rich
Its quite simple. I take the bible and the spirit of prophecy to heart. I have no desire to get into an intellectual debate on why Ellen White made the statements she did except to say that I believe and have faith that her warnings to us were divinely inspired. The burden of proof does not lie with my having to validate the spirit of prophecy or the bible. God said it - through her and I believe it. If the statements seem extreme to you - that is simply your interpretation. I believe they are said in light of the times we are living and are quite appropriate to this situation.
I believe we should not encourage, condone, accept, or invite speakers from other faiths to speak at our churches or our schools. We are too close to "the time of trouble such as never was" to waste time on ecunemical dialogue. Ted Wilson's ASI sermon was exactly what we needed to hear.
Sadly, Andrews Dept of Theology has been compromising and dialoguing for quite a while with other faiths and the results are quite evident. We are not going to change their theology and we risk compromising ours. Our theology should be kept simple and pure. Just like Jesus did. He knew he was not going to change the traditions of the pharisees and the saducees. He worked on individual hearts W not whole organizational doctrines.
I don't expect the majority of Spectrumites to agree with me. On the contrary, your response is what I expected. The only reason I post is so that other people who read these blogs will see that ALL SDAs do not believe nor condone the stories that are being written.
Sad - indeed .... LaMoria Patterson.... as you know what to expect from "Spectrumites", you may not even want to read this... While I respect your position, you might also consider what you are actually suggesting: No dialogue, no growth, no new light (guess who brought new light into the Adventist church some years back... Methodists, Brethren, Baptists...). Let's purge the James White Library of all books not published by R&H (for books preach longer than any invited speaker). Let's get rid of Ted Wilson - he got his doctorate out of the hands of non-Adventists. Let's move to a lone island, from whence we broadcast our message to a world we don't ever meet. May I suggest - it is not an "either completely withdraw or compromise", but a matter of being thinkers not mere "reflectors" of thoughts, testing, drawing conclusions - and sharing ideas in a Christ like spirit - yes even mingling with those we don't agree with. I believe you are sufficiently well read to hear the quotations alluded to.
Please give me an example of what you consider this "new light" to be? I really am interested to know. The "new light" I see is only leading us back into darkness.
" We are too close to "the time of trouble such as never was" to waste time on ecunemical dialogue."
Adventism will never be anything but a millenarian sect unless it takes a new look at its prophetic interpretations. But that, as we all know, has almost no chance of ever happening. Adventist identity derives from a peculiar historicist reading of the Biblical apocalypses. While Lutheranism, for instance, has moved away from the original millenarianism (many believed 1600 would bring the end of the world, for instance), Adventism will probably die away before it gives up its eschatological obsessions.
Underlying it all is a bigger question: how trustworthy are the end-of-the-world promises of the New Testament?
@LaMoria Patterson
ONE example.... fair enough... The Sabbath... was brought into Adventist awareness by a Baptist; even by a woman. And I believe Ellen White was not too pleased at first.... Of course, you will argue, things were different in those days. Now we have all the truth. Again, fair enough. How about Rev. 3:17....
My point, incidentally was not that we should dialogue in order to receive new light (though growth in knowledge and understanding always is a good idea), but because Christianity is a relational faith. Oh, and maybe - just maybe, there is some truth in those texts even to this day....: John 3:8; 10:16;
Thanks for dialoging!
Yes. But that is not a new light. I would like to know what current new light has been given to us now that was when our church was being established. What new light does aney of these ecumenical churches have to offer our churches. We are at the end of time. Our church has plenty to offer first day churches. We have the three angels message, the sanctuary message, etc. They have the charismatic movement, spiritual formation. What good new light have we recently received from the ecumenical community?
LaMoria,
It's clear from reading your comments on this thread that you believe Ellen White was a genuine prophet and that the SDA church is correct as regards all of its doctrinal positions. It's also a matter of historical record that the SDA doctrinal positions were adopted because of the specific endorsement of Ellen White, using her prophetic gift. So if Ellen White's prophetic gift were to be called into serious question, the distinctive doctrines of the Adventist church would also be up for review.
I'm an ex-SDA and believe Ellen White was a false prophet. Because of this, I've studied the distinctive beliefs of the Adventist church and no longer accept most of them.
I would also hazard a guess that you expect Christ will probably return in the next 10 years or so, and that you expect to live through the time of trouble prior to Christ's return.
I'm not going to try to convince you you're wrong - but I do request the following:
1. If you ever discover Ellen White was not a genuine prophet and are tempted to completely throw out your Christian faith on account of this, please contact me before doing so;
2. If, in the next 20 years, Christ has not returned and the US has not so much as adopted national Sunday laws, please contact me so I can explain why this is never likely to occur (at least, the bit about Sunday laws...)
My email address is robert-sonter@hotmail.com. I also have a Facebook profile under the name of Bob Sonter. If hotmail and Facebook are gone in the next 20 years, I live in Sydney, Australia, and plan to be here for at least the next 20 years :)
Robert Sonter: If you ever decide to completely throw out your Christian faith because you study yourself into unbelief like Bogdan has done, contact me. I am in Sydney - you can email me on kevin@thebrownclan.net
If you are not ready when Jesus comes in the near future - there is nothing I can do for you. Sunday laws WILL come although I doubt you will be will be able to resist obeying the laws of man given your rejection of what the SDA church has discovered as Bible truth. Ellen White did not develop our distinctive teachings. As you already know they were developed through earnest prayer and deep study by devoted Christians of various faith backgrounds.
PrBigKev
PrBigKev,
As YOU well know, there were a lot of strange ideas floated by the early pioneers of the SDA church during their earnest prayer and deep study - the ones that were adopted were the ones Ellen White said were right.
Robert
If those two things were to happen. YOU would not be the point of contact. God would.
My belief is first based on God and His word. Ellen White is the blessing God provided to enhance my faith and studies.
But whether she is a prophet was not my question. I want to know what "new light" has been brought to the church through ecunemism.
God will prevail and I am sorry for your unbelief.
LaMoria Patterson must be a "fake."
It's not possible that someone in their sanity would advocate for so many things totally contrary to common sense and logic.
Robert Sonter: It seems that there are some people ready to "shut the door" on you. Careful brother.....
George
With faith all things are possible.
God bless.
“Ellen White did not develop our distinctive teachings. As you already know they were developed through earnest prayer and deep study…” – PrBigKev
Vs.
“As YOU well know… the ones that were adopted were the ones Ellen White said were right.” -- Robert
I wonder who’s right, PrBigKev or Robert?
“In the early days of the message, when our numbers were few, we studied diligently to understand the meaning of many Scriptures. At times it seemed as if no explanation could be given. My mind seemed to be locked to an understanding of the Word; but when our brethren who had assembled for study came to a point where they could go no farther, and had recourse to earnest prayer, the Spirit of God would rest upon me, and I would be taken off in vision, and be instructed in regard to the relation of Scripture to Scripture. These experiences were repeated over and over and over again. Thus many truths of the third angel’s message were established, point by point.” Review and Herald, June 14, 1906, p. 8.
Sorry Robert. I got to go with PrBigKev on this one. Ellen Whit had nothing to do with it, just good old prayer and bible study. :)
tg
TJG,
I am amazed how much you have grown in wisdom to discern between true and false statements. I am glad you are taking the right side on this issue as well....
My statement still holds true ... EGW did not develop our distinctive teachings. They were either developed by earnest prayer and Bible study, and/or God revealed the truth to the pioneers through the prophetic gift as seen in EGW. She was not responsible for developing our distinctive teachings.
@PrBigKev: "My statement still holds true ... EGW did not develop our distinctive teachings...."
It's OK for you to keep repeating this statement, but only neophytes will believe in it. Those of us that have been around for a long time, especially those who have examined all those issues in depth, know that you are (may be unintentionally...) just BSing the readers with such a misleading statement.
Or, may be you have not studied the issue properly and actually believe in it. Or you will repeat it so many times until you yourself end up believing in it. I am just giving you the benefit of the doubt.
One think is accepting those misleading positions for personal use, and I don't have a problem with this. Everyone should believe in what they choose to.
But it is wrong to keep making statements that are misleading, and passing them out as if they were true. You know, some people may end up believing it...
G'day George: I have studied the issue properly and I do actually believe it and therefore will continue to repeat it. To suggest I am "BSing" the readers, as you so delicately put it is offensive and misleading itself.
Sorry, PrBigKev, but if you have actually studied it properly, and keep this position, then you deserve NO benefit of doubt whatsoever on this issue.
Simple question on this for you, just a YES/NO answer please:
Did you read/study at least the following materials?
Des Ford's "1844, the Atonement, and the Investigative Judgement"
Rea's "The White Lie"
Number's "EGW, Prophetess of Health
The materials available about the 1919 Conference
(There is much much more, but for an initiation these are basic! Most have been around for over 30 years))
Please, YES [ ] , NO [ ]
No lecture needed (as it usually happens), just a straightforward answer.
I wonder who’s right, PrBigKev or Robert?
“In the early days of the message, when our numbers were few, we studied diligently to understand the meaning of many Scriptures. At times it seemed as if no explanation could be given. My mind seemed to be locked to an understanding of the Word; but when our brethren who had assembled for study came to a point where they could go no farther, and had recourse to earnest prayer, the Spirit of God would rest upon me, and I would be taken off in vision, and be instructed in regard to the relation of Scripture to Scripture. These experiences were repeated over and over and over again. Thus many truths of the third angel’s message were established, point by point.” Review and Herald, June 14, 1906, p. 8.
************************************************
Hello,
May be both Robert and Pastor Big Kev do not personally believe that EGW's writings are an infallible interpreter of the Bible. But on what basis do SDA's claim that Jesus Christ, for the first time, entered the most holy place in 1844? The Bible clearly does not support this. Hiram Edson came up with this idea in a corn field, and Ellen White endorsed it with her visions. Camping came up with a similar line of reasoning after his great disappointment.
LaMoria, Rich's concerns are valid and you are not addressing them, instead making an issue over what is not the problem (i.e., the validity of the SOP).
What Rich is saying, as I am also wondering, is that you are throwing around these biblical and SOP quotes without really seeing if they apply specifically to the situation of inviting Kinnamon to speak. You are just bandying around 'doctrines of demons' and 'be ye separate and touch not any unclean thing', like you could read Paul's mind and that he was talking about this kind of thing.
This is careless proof texting akin to those who look at 'absent from the body and present with the Lord' as bedrock proof of the immortality of the soul.
I think Paul had many other different things in mind when saying these comments, than addresses from fellow Christian believers. Instead we see quotes from Christ and Paul talking about the differing views and service of fellow believers and not to hinder them. Is Paul talking about the same thing in both instances and contradicting himself?? That is pretty much what you are saying in making his comments towards pagan idolatry apply to this instance of inviting fellow Christians to speak to us who have differing beliefs.
You are being irresponsible.
La Moria -- "The only reason I post is so that other people who read these blogs will see that ALL SDAs do not believe nor condone the stories that are being written."
Spot on and I appreciate your faithfulness to both the Word of God and the words He has spoken thru EGW. May you always remain faithful to the light we have been given.
Indeed with all the academicians that inhabit Adventism it seems a stretch to insist we must give money (I surmise he was paid)to learn about ecumenism. Plus most of those in Adventist educational circles have acquired advanced degrees at "worldly" institutions and should be well aware of what is taught in them so that they can warn impressionable young students of pitfalls to avoid.
No Spin Zone: I Report, You Decide.
Our laborers should be very careful not to give the impression that they are wolves stealing in to get the sheep, but should let the ministers understand their position and the object of their mission--to call the attention of the people to the truths of God's Word. There are many of these which are dear to all Christians. Here is common ground, upon which we can meet people of other denominations; and in becoming acquainted with them we should dwell mostly upon topics in which all feel an interest, and which will not lead directly and pointedly to the subjects of disagreement.--Review and Herald, June 13, 1912. {Ev 143.5}
Ministers of the popular denominations of the day are acceptable preachers if they can speak upon a few simple points of the Bible; {2T 556.1}
RELIGIOUS SERVICES AT THE SANITARIUM
Sunday afternoon, at 4 P. M., there is a general Bible class in the Sanitarium parlor, for the benefit of the patients and boarders. The text used is the International Lessons. {1890, MBC90 7.3}
Sunday evening, at 7:30, divine service is held in the parlor, the chaplain usually officiating, but frequently the preaching is by ministers of other denominations. {1890, MBC90 7.4}
"...so that they can warn impressionable young students of pitfalls to avoid."
This is a University Graduate School, to suggest that we are impressionable kids to be coddled and protected from the outside world is insulting.
George the rules of engagement in a debate/discussion should be agreed to before starting. To presume to lay down the rules yourself is rather arrogant.
I will answer you on my terms.
I am VERY familiar with the arguments/contents of Des Ford, Walter Rea & Ronald Numbers & the 1919 Bible conference. (Ballenger, Canright, Ratzlaf etc. as well)
Have you read the EGW biography by Arthur White, Messenger of the Lord by Herbert Douglass, Search for Identity by George Knight? etc. (Not to mention a correct reading of the Bible that points to latter day prophets.)
PrBigKev
[This back-and-forth between a few individuals has gotten far off topic. Feel free to exchange emails. Any more discussion that does not focus on the original post will be deleted. --Alexander Carpenter]
"To presume to lay down the rules yourself is rather arrogant.
I will answer you on my terms.
I am VERY familiar with the arguments/contents of Des Ford, Walter Rea & Ronald Numbers & the 1919 Bible conference. (Ballenger, Canright, Ratzlaf etc. as well)" -- PrBigKev
---------------
PrBigKev,
I understood George to be simply requesting an answer to a question about your reading so he could assess whether he could engage you meaningfully (George, correct me if I'm wrong). How is this laying down the rules for a debate?
And I note you haven't actually answered his question. I too am interested in the answer. You claim to be "VERY familiar with the arguments/contents" of a number of authors - I meet many people who make this claim but have not actually read their work. The question was whether you have actually read these works (and it should be a question answered very easily.)
If I could add a question of my own: Have you read the transcript of the interview between John Harvey Kellogg, and G.W. Amadon and A.C. Bourdeau on 7th October 1907? If not, I really do believe you owe it to yourself to read this.
Sorry Alexander Carpenter, I just noticed your comment above, moments after I posted my last comment. Point taken, and feel free to remove my comment.
Back to the topic: I'm really puzzled at why anybody is objecting to Dr Kinnamon speaking at Andrews. From all accounts, he fully respected the terms of reference implicit in his invitation, and wasn't remotely interested in challenging any points of the SDA faith. The message appears to have been "Don't shut yourselves away from the rest of the Christian world. In doing so, you foster suspicion and mis-understanding, and also deprive the rest of the Christian world of your unique insights into the Christian message".
Many years ago when I worked at Pacific Adventist College (now Pacific Adventist University) in Papua New Guinea, we once had a Buddhist address us at an evening prayer meeting. And this wasn't just to a faculty audience, but students as well. I think it does us all good to be exposed to other spiritual models, so we can improve the way we relate to those who believe according to those models.
Charles Possenriede - Sat, 02/04/2012 - 13:43
No Spin Zone: I Report, You Decide...................
RELIGIOUS SERVICES AT THE SANITARIUM
Sunday afternoon, at 4 P. M., there is a general Bible class in the Sanitarium parlor, for the benefit of the patients and boarders. The text used is the International Lessons. {1890, MBC90 7.3}
Sunday evening, at 7:30, divine service is held in the parlor, the chaplain usually officiating, but frequently the preaching is by ministers of other denominations. {1890, MBC90 7.4}
*******************
Thanks Charles for those interesting quotes. It looks like back in 1890 that preachers like Dr. Michael Kinnamon, would have been welcome to preach at the Sunday evening service at the Sanitarium. It would seem that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what historic Adventism really stands for. Apparently there was not such a rigid and controlling structure back in those times.
"Indeed with all the academicians that inhabit Adventism..." -- Your Friend
-----------------------
I've only ever seen/heard two people use the word "academicians" - Your Friend, and Elder Ted Wilson. Is it just possible that they're one and the same? :)
@Mike MacLennan:But on what basis do SDA's claim that Jesus Christ, for the first time, entered the most holy place in 1844? The Bible clearly does not support this. Hiram Edson came up with this idea in a corn field, and Ellen White endorsed it with her visions. Camping came up with a similar line of reasoning after his great disappointment."
You are right. This "doctrine" is an heresy if we accept the Bible as a reliable source of truth. The Book of Hebrews completely contradicts this spurious teaching. The choice here is between believing what is taught in the Book of Hebrews or the opposite as taught by EGW.
Everyone can chose as they please. But cannot have both!
Hi Mike,
I agree with your statement that says; "It would seem that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what historic Adventism really stands for." I feel that this is a chronic problem in our church today. On any given topic (music, holidays, etc.) many Adventists don't really know how our church historically approached things. I've recently finished a study on how our church pioneers viewed Christmas and found out that on Christmas eve and Christmas day, regardless of what day of the week they fell on, Adventists were in church holding church services (Review & Herald, Dec. 15, 1885 par. 5; October 25, 1888 N/A, GCDB 19.18; October 30, 1889, N/A GCDB 111.11; Manuscript 24, Dec. 25, 1889, diary.; Manuscript 53, Dec. 24, 25, 1890, pp. 6-8. Diary 16, pp. 420-423). But there are many in the church today who feel it's wrong to have anything to do with Christmas. We need to be careful that our church doesn't become something that our pioneers would have a hard time recognizing if they were around today.
The response I get from many Adventists regarding Christmas services that fall on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day is not "they are wrong," but "I'm too busy." Yes, a few Adventist think celebrating Christmas is wrong, but not very many. But sadly, many of our members seem more attracted to the secular aspects of Christmas than to the birth of their Savior. They are quite willing to have Christmas services but not on Christmas itself because that might intrude on their families' fun.
Your comments are entirely inconsistent with the Christ who entered into dialogue with fallen man, not to become one with us in our sin but to deliver us through his death founded on his love. Other groups need to see that we have love enough for them that we will listen to them share the deepest convictions of their hearts. Your sniping is consistent with the sad spirit which ultimately crucified Christ.
"they will know you are my disciples by your love." - Jesus
Having well thought out belief systems is important, but they aren't the ultimate thing to strive for and privilege.
I'd much rather that Adventism was known for the exceptional practical love in everyday life and situations and to all people and nature (or for our strict behavioural codes), than to be known how "right" we are (in comparison to how wrong every one else is).
“I was shown the necessity of those who believe that we are having the last message of mercy, being separate from those who are daily imbibing new errors. I saw that neither young nor old should attend their meetings; for it is wrong to thus encourage them while they teach error that is a deadly poison to the soul and teach for doctrines the commandments of men. The influence of such gatherings is not good. If God has delivered us from such darkness and error, we should stand fast in the liberty wherewith He has set us free and rejoice in the truth. God is displeased with us when we go to listen to error, without being obliged to go.” [Italics supplied] EW 124, 125
This is dragon talk brother!
Thank you for your balanced view of this issue. To think that we have nothing to learn from other devote Grace-filled Christians is totally arrogant. These attitudes have influenced non SDA Christians (and some within our own ranks) to believe "we" think we are the only ones tidy enough for Heaven.
Based on the argument posed by Charles Possenriede I would most respectfully advise that one to please put the quotes in context. I found "Considering Pastors of Other Denominations" to be about our actions when our missionaries or laborers go out to evangelize those congregations. In order for them to see the light we need to explain what they think they already know so we start on grounds common. In relation to the statement "Ministers of the popular denominations of the day are acceptable preachers if they can speak upon a few simple points of the Bible" Ellen White was making a contrast between us and them.Where as they can be considered acceptable if they can speak on simple points, as people with the light of present truth SDAs cannot measure ourselves by that standard. She says in the following statement " but the ministers who are spreading unpopular truth for these last days,[OUR MINISTERS] who have to meet men of learning, men of strong minds, and opposers of every type, should know what they are about. They should not take upon themselves the responsibility of teaching the truth unless they are qualified for the work. Before engaging in, or devoting themselves to, the work they should become Bible students. If they have not an education so that they can speak in public with acceptance, and do justice to the truth, and honor the Lord whom they profess to serve, they should wait till they are fitted for the position. {2T 556.1}
I would like some serious help with this statement...More quotes could be marshalled but in light of the positions taking concerning the authority of Ellen White something needs to be said. The very quotes used to say Bible Study and prayer were involved in the formation of doctrines support revelations given to Ellen White as an answer to those prayers. She said her mind was locked so she could not contribute her own thoughts, on the biblical arguments therefore she gave us what God gave her. We cannot trifle with her writings because they are not her own. Trifle with them and you trifle with the Spirit of God who gave them.
Gospel workers 302.2 "We are to be established in the faith, in the light of the truth given us in our early experience. At that time one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds. Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures, and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error." To WHAT? TO DEFINE!!! Strong words. Lets get it right...She is a prophet of God.